I was going to write John Goodricke but I was not sure if it's answer was that ,pheww.
I have got some new set of questions ,let my chance come,U will have great quizzing pleasure.

I am back here again to blast off ur questions.

__________________
Brains,what we have different

Indeed, I was typing as fast as I could, becuse I knew what google had to say about the '"deaf and dumb" astronomer' search string....
Well, kill this one, and we'll all have tons of fun:

Rarely nowadays does philosophy inform science. But there is one significant finding in 20th century astronomy that was "dragged into the open", if you will, by the application of philosophy.

Which finding is it and who were the persons invlolved?

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

General relativity of Einstein from the philosophy of Mach? Can't get more significant than that.

No, I wouldn't say that GR stems directly from Mach's philosphy, although of course, Einstein was greatly influenced by his thinking. Relativity theory is very much about clocks and meter sticks and could have been arrived at without knowing about Mach's philosophy.

I am thinking of the application of philosphy leading directly to the setup of a specific experiment resulting in a single experimental result conforming to the philosphical idea. Very specific.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

I guess it is Einstein-strauss De Sitter universe,but is it conforming a philosophical idea?
But i do think that it is ,ur question hasn't yet reached my mainframe window of brain.

__________________
Brains,what we have different

Ah, here the water gets murky; there is of course a lot of interplay between GR and quantum theory and philosophy - maybe I should therefore state explicitly that the interpretation of GR or quantum theory per se are not what I have in mind.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Einstein himself gave a lot of credit to Mach, though Mach refused it. That's special relativity, not general relativity, which came ten years later.All of them.

Not quite. In his own popular account of the theory of relativity, Einstein started the GR chapter with the sticks and clocks of SR but forced the reader to accept that the sticks have to became wobbly in GR....
Now here is a minority position in today's scientific community (Although I'd agree wholeheartedly). Still, as far as our little puzzle's concerned: A specific philosophical position or statement leading to a specific experiment giving a specific result.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Philosopher Kant may have been the first to introduce the idea that nebula might be other galaxies. I doubt this fits the specifics point, however.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

That is interesting, although I'd say that Kant didn't develop this idea from a specific philosophical position rather than as a, shall we say, "intra-scientific" hypothesis (AFAIK, Kant was quite literate scientifically and was well versed in Newton's mechanics. My father likes to tell the story that of all the lectures he had to give at the University of Königsberg, Physical Geography was his favourite - for him, who never left Königsberg in his entire life ).

Maybe it's time for some hinting (no bludgeoning this time, please, George )
The finding involves the numbers 5, 6 and 7.
The man who had the idea can be considered a famous astronomer.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

A hint a day keeps the frustration away.

The result has to do with human existence.
And since George mentioned Kant (d. 1804): I did say, didn't I, that we are looking for something in the 20th century.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

before i thought that it is going to be related with vinci.And that's Vinci's "vitruvian man" and a similar shape of upland "pyramid" was found on mars in 20th century.
Your hint somehow hasn't compelled me to change my answer.

__________________
Brains,what we have different

No, not what I am thinking of. BTW, I do not consider the "discovery" of something pareidolists consider to be "artificial" and "similar" to famous human artifacts a scientific result.

With my result, we are quite within the mainstream although (next daily hint) the person who initiated the experiment from a philosophical point of view is not usually associated with "mainstream" today.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

It was in the 20th century that revealed the philosophy was correct. So, you are saying that both the philosophy and the confirming science happened in the 20th century. That helps.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Ah, I am afraid my answer may have been premature in that respect. The philosophc position in question here may be older than the 20th century (I don't know, actually). What I can say is that the actual application of this position on an experimentally testable physical question was done in entirely in the 20th century.

This connenction, to my knowledge, was not there for theories of stallar formation. While one can say that Kant was ultimately proven correct in his hypothesis of stellar formation, one can't say (I think) that the physicists of the 20th century actually had Kant in mind while developing their models.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

I suspect this was true, mainstream seemed to favor Shapley's view that our galaxy was it (all there is out there). Ironically, it was his calculations that suggested the Milky Way was 300,000 lyrs. in diameter; assumed to be much larger than any other potential galaxy. Curtis, on the other hand, believed the galaxy to be much smaller; therefore, other galaxies similar to ours might explain the "clouds". Shapley used Leavitt's Cepheid data of the SMC to help make this determination, but elected not to mention it in his big "debate" with Curtis in order to throw Curtis off, apparently. [Shapley believed Curtis had the upper hand in a debate due to his experience in debating, so Shapley had the debate reduced to presentations only, with no rebuttals, IIRC.]

LaGrange(?) came up with the idea of accretion disks, but that was science, not philosophy. I'm still thinking.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

O.K., no hint for yesterday (I was offline doing what a new father has to do...)

Let's sumarise:
The question:
Rarely nowadays does philosophy inform science. But there is one significant finding in 20th century astronomy that was "dragged into the open", if you will, by the application of philosophy.
Which finding is it and who were the persons invlolved?
The hints so far:

• I am thinking of the application of philosphy leading directly to the setup of a specific experiment resulting in a single experimental result conforming to the philosphical idea. Very specific.
• I should [...] state explicitly that the interpretation of GR or quantum theory per se are not what I have in mind.
• The result has to do with human existence.
• The finding involves the numbers 5, 6 and 7.
• The man who had the idea can be considered a famous astronomer.
• With my result, we are quite within the mainstream although (next daily hint)
• The person who initiated the experiment from a philosophical point of view is not usually associated with "mainstream" today.

The hint for today:
The unphilosophically inclined might say, although I wouldn' share their opinion, that the heuristic principle this astronomer applied was not philosphy at all but simply some common sense and a lot of creative thinking. As a collaborator wrote (no use googling this one; it's a retranslation from the German): "With this discovery, a purely +++physical consideration had, for the first time, directly influenced ***physics. That was tantamount to a sensation. The imagination of X had founded +++***physics.

X is the guy who had the idea
+++ and *** stand for different disciplines of physics. The philosphy I have in mind is hidden in the +++physics.

Now how is that not a dead giveaway.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Does +++ stand for "para" or "meta"?

No, as I said, they stand for "disciplines of physics".

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.